Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Backports for 1.11.3 #56741

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: release-1.11
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Backports for 1.11.3 #56741

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

KristofferC
Copy link
Member

@KristofferC KristofferC commented Dec 3, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Backported PRs:

Need manual backport:

Contains multiple commits, manual intervention needed:

Non-merged PRs with backport label:

@KristofferC KristofferC added the release Release management and versioning. label Dec 3, 2024
@maleadt
Copy link
Member

maleadt commented Dec 10, 2024

This also needs to include LinearAlgebra.jl back-ports: https://github.com/JuliaLang/LinearAlgebra.jl/issues?q=state%3Aclosed%20label%3A%22backport%201.11%22
Or should those be made into commits here against release-1.11 (where the stdlib hasn't been moved out)?

@KristofferC
Copy link
Member Author

Or should those be made into commits here against release-1.11 (where the stdlib hasn't been moved out)?

I've been thinking about it and I think the easiest is just to cherry pick these commits onto the julia repo onto either a backports-linearalgebra-1.11 branch or directly to backports-1.11.

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

@nanosoldier runtests(vs=“release-1.10”)

@maleadt
Copy link
Member

maleadt commented Dec 13, 2024

@IanButterworth You typo'd the syntax, branches need to be specified using :: https://github.com/JuliaCI/Nanosoldier.jl?tab=readme-ov-file#trigger-syntax. In any case, it shouldn't be required here, as PkgEval uses the merge-base, which should be release-1.10 already.

@nanosoldier runtests()

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

IanButterworth commented Dec 13, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Ah ok, but this is a 1.11 backports PR. I wanted to check it against 1.10 (because stuff in the blacklist hasn't been tested vs 1.10 because of that bug)

IanButterworth and others added 4 commits December 13, 2024 14:39
@IanButterworth
Fix test report alignment (#56789)
f987397 
(cherry picked from commit 32ea18e)
@oscardssmith
fix exp(weirdNaN) (#56784)
a788519 
Fixes #56782
Fix `exp(reinterpret(Float64, 0x7ffbb14880000000))` returning non-NaN
value. This should have minimal performance impact since it's already in
the fallback branch.

(cherry picked from commit 19e06d3)
@IanButterworth
Fix generate_precompile statement grouping & avoid defining new func (#…
9a48815 
…56317)

(cherry picked from commit 582585b)
@wsmoses
Fix partially_inline for unreachable (#56787)
3fb7f2e 
(cherry picked from commit 9118ea7)
@DilumAluthge
Copy link
Member

I don't see the Nanosoldier commit status here, which leads me to believe that either the webhook was never delivered, or that the Nanosoldier server didn't accept the job.

@DilumAluthge
Copy link
Member

@nanosoldier runtests()

This was referenced Dec 13, 2024
Closed
Closed
@nanosoldier
Copy link
Collaborator

The package evaluation job you requested has completed - possible new issues were detected.
The full report is available.

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

@nanosoldier runtests(vs=":release-1.10")

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

IanButterworth commented Dec 14, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@maleadt please cancel the duplicate run invoked here #56741 (comment) (or let me know how to if I can)

The latest request I did is the correct spec. We want to check against 1.10 state

@maleadt
Copy link
Member

maleadt commented Dec 14, 2024

please cancel the duplicate run invoked here #56741 (comment) (or let me know how to if I can)

It is currently not possible to cancel Nanosoldier invocations. Only thing I can to is restart the service at a strategic time. I'll check tomorrow when this job starts.

@maleadt
Copy link
Member

maleadt commented Dec 16, 2024

@nanosoldier runtests(vs=":release-1.10")

@nanosoldier
Copy link
Collaborator

The package evaluation job you requested has completed - possible new issues were detected.
The full report is available.

@jakobnissen
Copy link
Contributor

The ScanByte segfault is a package issue and not a problem with Julia 1.11. I've added it to the PkgEval blacklist.

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

IanButterworth commented Dec 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

I haven't looked into the pkgeval run of this 1.11 branch against 1.10 in detail, but:

593 packages failed only on the current version

  • Package fails to precompile (99 packages):
  • Illegal method overwrites during precompilation (10 packages):
  • Package has test failures (128 packages):
  • Package tests unexpectedly errored (126 packages):
  • Package is missing a package dependency (1 packages):
  • Package is using an unknown package (2 packages):
  • There were unidentified errors (19 packages):
  • Tests became inactive (3 packages):
  • Test duration exceeded the time limit (203 packages):
  • Test log exceeded the size limit (2 packages):

191 packages passed tests only on the current version.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
release Release management and versioning.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
9 participants
@KristofferC @maleadt @IanButterworth @DilumAluthge @nanosoldier @jakobnissen @N5N3 @oscardssmith @wsmoses